Quick Links

Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA

The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.

Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

I dunno, I think you showed pretty convincingly over the last year that they will. In fact, they have every incentive to do so.

Also McConnell keeps trying to re-write history on what the "Biden Rule" is/was. It wasn't that the Senate wouldn't confirm a Supreme Court nominee during a presidential election year, that's the "McConnell is a Douchenozzle Rule" so I can see why McConnell is confused. The Biden Rule (and it wasn't a rule, merely a suggestion) was that during a presidential election year, if a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court, the sitting president delay their nomination until after the election.

Was thinking about all those coal miners that voted for Trump. Do they not remember that coal companies have been among the most evil corporations to ever exist? Do they not realize that any "aid to coal" will end up being handouts to the companies and slashing of the regulations that keep them in check? That the coal companies will basically enslave them and literally slaughter them (or call up the military and have air strikes when they resist? Safety regulations will be cut so miners will start dying from accidents, and black lung benefits will be cut so any who survive will suffocate penniless, the water will be poisoned so their families will die of that, and hell, maybe they'll even ban unions and allow people to be paid in scrip. Or cut costs by bringing in unpaid prison labor (the jobs are saved! The people die, but fuck them. Only JOBS are important.) The National Guard would be called up against strikers, or maybe drones sent these days.

Coal was always a dead end that screwed everybody on multiple levels but the rich owners.

WASHINGTON—President-elect Donald Trump, a harsh critic of U.S. intelligence agencies, is working with top advisers on a plan that would restructure and pare back the nation’s top spy agency, people familiar with the planning said, prompted by a belief that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has become bloated and politicized.

Trump will only consider intelligence agencies not politicized when they are completely politicized in his favor (Comey's letter is not political while not prosecuting Clinton is political), so that really worries me.

Paring down intelligence agencies would provide plenty of opportunities for getting rid of dissent that might reach conclusions the administration doesn't like.

Well, that's worrying as fuck. This is full on failed state purges of the government stuff.

Like with NATO, it's another thing where Trump's right for the wrong reasons. How to fix the intelligence agency quagmire is one of those things Presidents have been trying for a generation, and usually attempts to fix just make it worse (like when Bush's effort to reconcile interagency rivalries that had their role in causing 9/11 to get past the radar ended up creating an entire expensive new cabinet-level department).

Similar to NATO, i'm sure any solution Trump devises will just make the problem worse.

The mistake is in thinking that Trump wants to fix any actual problems with the agencies in question. He doesn't. He wants them to stop telling him things he doesn't want to hear, and only tell him things that he does.

Like with NATO, it's another thing where Trump's right for the wrong reasons. How to fix the intelligence agency quagmire is one of those things Presidents have been trying for a generation, and usually attempts to fix just make it worse (like when Bush's effort to reconcile interagency rivalries that had their role in causing 9/11 to get past the radar ended up creating an entire expensive new cabinet-level department).

Similar to NATO, i'm sure any solution Trump devises will just make the problem worse.

Uh, what? In what way is Trump right on NATO exactly?

NATO countries don't pull their fair share in defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The reason NATO has worked for so long under this dynamic is cause the US spends well over our requirement. Places like France, and the UK don't spend as much as they're supposed to (I think it's like 2% of GDP? Can't recall the exact number but it's somewhere in the 2-4% range).

In that sense Trump is kinda right that we need to go back to the table and figure out these agreements cause as of right now we're pulling the majority of the weight for such a broad coalition.

The thing with the CIA though is a bit different. It's harder to make changes that aren't just pure policy or foreign policy type things but bureaucratic problems. And what's more is that it comes at a time that reeks of corruption and political purging. Hopefully the incoming administration won't be able to actually do a whole lot on that front since people have contracts and can't be fired that easily in the IC (you don't get fired, you leave more or less). I do think it's fucking hilarious that Flynn wants to rotate other agencies into the field as if other IC agencies have any reason at all to do so. The CIA is the sole responsible party of HUMINT. They have actual reasons to be in the field when there isn't a full blown war going on -- gathering intelligence, making network connections, recruiting sources, covert operations and other undercover work. What does he expect, NSA analysts to be in the desert of Syria listening to ISIL broadcasts on a shitty radio?

The GOP and their base have, IMO, a pretty poor track record when it comes to understanding anything that doesn't directly, clearly and personally benefit them. And even when it does, if it also benefits those they consider unworthy, they're likely to want it gone ayway.

Like with NATO, it's another thing where Trump's right for the wrong reasons. How to fix the intelligence agency quagmire is one of those things Presidents have been trying for a generation, and usually attempts to fix just make it worse (like when Bush's effort to reconcile interagency rivalries that had their role in causing 9/11 to get past the radar ended up creating an entire expensive new cabinet-level department).

Similar to NATO, i'm sure any solution Trump devises will just make the problem worse.

Uh, what? In what way is Trump right on NATO exactly?

NATO countries don't pull their fair share in defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The reason NATO has worked for so long under this dynamic is cause the US spends well over our requirement. Places like France, and the UK don't spend as much as they're supposed to (I think it's like 2% of GDP? Can't recall the exact number but it's somewhere in the 2-4% range).

In that sense Trump is kinda right that we need to go back to the table and figure out these agreements cause as of right now we're pulling the majority of the weight for such a broad coalition.

The thing with the CIA though is a bit different. It's harder to make changes that aren't just pure policy or foreign policy type things but bureaucratic problems. And what's more is that it comes at a time that reeks of corruption and political purging. Hopefully the incoming administration won't be able to actually do a whole lot on that front since people have contracts and can't be fired that easily in the IC (you don't get fired, you leave more or less). I do think it's fucking hilarious that Flynn wants to rotate other agencies into the field as if other IC agencies have any reason at all to do so. The CIA is the sole responsible party of HUMINT. They have actual reasons to be in the field when there isn't a full blown war going on -- gathering intelligence, making network connections, recruiting sources, covert operations and other undercover work. What does he expect, NSA analysts to be in the desert of Syria listening to ISIL broadcasts on a shitty radio?

Except that's not what Trump has been saying. Nor is the US pulling most of the weight a problem. Hegemony ain't free bitches.

Like with NATO, it's another thing where Trump's right for the wrong reasons. How to fix the intelligence agency quagmire is one of those things Presidents have been trying for a generation, and usually attempts to fix just make it worse (like when Bush's effort to reconcile interagency rivalries that had their role in causing 9/11 to get past the radar ended up creating an entire expensive new cabinet-level department).

Similar to NATO, i'm sure any solution Trump devises will just make the problem worse.

Uh, what? In what way is Trump right on NATO exactly?

NATO countries don't pull their fair share in defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The reason NATO has worked for so long under this dynamic is cause the US spends well over our requirement. Places like France, and the UK don't spend as much as they're supposed to (I think it's like 2% of GDP? Can't recall the exact number but it's somewhere in the 2-4% range).

In that sense Trump is kinda right that we need to go back to the table and figure out these agreements cause as of right now we're pulling the majority of the weight for such a broad coalition.

The thing with the CIA though is a bit different. It's harder to make changes that aren't just pure policy or foreign policy type things but bureaucratic problems. And what's more is that it comes at a time that reeks of corruption and political purging. Hopefully the incoming administration won't be able to actually do a whole lot on that front since people have contracts and can't be fired that easily in the IC (you don't get fired, you leave more or less). I do think it's fucking hilarious that Flynn wants to rotate other agencies into the field as if other IC agencies have any reason at all to do so. The CIA is the sole responsible party of HUMINT. They have actual reasons to be in the field when there isn't a full blown war going on -- gathering intelligence, making network connections, recruiting sources, covert operations and other undercover work. What does he expect, NSA analysts to be in the desert of Syria listening to ISIL broadcasts on a shitty radio?

Re. NATO, that's a pretty unfortunate post hoc interpretation of the situation. That is to say, NATO's, as an international treaty, "fairness" doesn't really arise from who spends what % of their GDP. Even if Europe and Canada spent 0% of their GDP on defense, it would remain in the US's interest to defend Europe and especially Canada from foreign invasion. The difference then is that this would functionally make European nations client states of the US, which they don't want, but ultimately, NATO wasn't enshrined with the 2% spending responsibility as a deal-breaking element here. If Germany only spends 1.5%, the US is just going to be okay with Russia invading?

I mean, here's the thing: the US spends $650B on their military annually, for 3.61% of GDP. Canada spends $20B, at 1% of GDP. So say Canada doubles its military spending to $40B... uh... so... what, does the US cut back down to 2% then? Who makes up the missing $290B? In fact, take ALL the NATO countries spending less than 2% of GDP on their militaries, raise those expenditures to 2%, and the difference is a "paltry" $66B. That is, if ALL NATO countries moved to 2% GDP military spending, NATO would be short $225B.

What is happening is that the US is removing any incentive for other NATO nations to spend on their military, because the US is spending so much on its military, albeit partially due to their two-front doctrine and the fact that the US has interests in the Pacific that other NATO members do not (other than Canada). The US spends three times more on their military than the next nation, China at $216B. They are the big bully in the playground, and when you're one of the big bully's lackeys, you don't really need to get into any fights, so who cares? (Never mind that most other NATO nations are far less interested in bullying other nations than the US is.)

Let's be real: if other NATO nations were really to increase their military spending, it's not like the US would spend less in response. If the US were to make gestures that they are decreasingly likely to intervene on behalf of NATO nations, those nations would, in turn, ramp up their defense spending, but it would have nothing to do with "fairness" to the US; the US wouldn't "get" anything out of that in any way. If anything, what the US wants most out of its NATO partners is political cover and manpower (not technological nor materiel) contributions for the US' foreign adventures, but they've sort of shot away whatever willingness there was with the adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's not going to be like, "Oooo, Canada built 5 more frigates, so time to retire the Nimitz I guess!"

Edit: Maybe, maybe, there's some interest in getting NATO partners to join in on US arms development, so as to spread out some of those capital costs more widely, but again, the JSF-35's kinda turning out to be a financial disaster that still represents a relative pindrop in US military expenditures. I still don't think anybody knows how much they cost to develop.

If the Democrats start justifying obstructionism just because Republicans did it to them in the past then it's proof that the "when they go low, we go high" mantra is bullshit. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to pushing their agenda. There are no high roads here.

If the Democrats start justifying obstructionism just because Republicans did it to them in the past then it's proof that the "when they go low, we go high" mantra is bullshit. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to pushing their agenda. There are no high roads here.

No, it's not. I mean, let's not mince words here, McConnell is now complaining about the very tactic he employed to steal a SCOTUS seat from the Democrats via instigating a constitutional crisis.

If the Democrats start justifying obstructionism just because Republicans did it to them in the past then it's proof that the "when they go low, we go high" mantra is bullshit. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to pushing their agenda. There are no high roads here.

I don't want Democrats to do it just because Republicans do it. I want them to do it whenever Republicans put forward atrocious policy or nominations. If Republicans decide to ever start compromising I'm happy for Dems to reciprocate but I do not at all accept the idea that what's right is rewarding eight years of obstructionism with letting them do whatever they want.

If the Democrats start justifying obstructionism just because Republicans did it to them in the past then it's proof that the "when they go low, we go high" mantra is bullshit. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to pushing their agenda. There are no high roads here.

It is bullshit at the moment, and why should the Dems not play hard ball?

Democrats have done a shitty job of demonstrating that they understand how Republicans feel, without that there will never be a strong foundation for negotiation or compromise. Every effort spent on fruitless obstructionism is a wasted opportunity for a deeper conversation. It needs to stop. Take the high road.

If the Democrats start justifying obstructionism just because Republicans did it to them in the past then it's proof that the "when they go low, we go high" mantra is bullshit. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to pushing their agenda. There are no high roads here.

It is bullshit at the moment, and why should the Dems not play hard ball?

Democrats have done a shitty job of demonstrating that they understand how Republicans feel, without that there will never be a strong foundation for negotiation or compromise. Every effort spent on fruitless obstructionism is a wasted opportunity for a deeper conversation. It needs to stop. Take the high road.

On the contrary, Obama's administration did that to the hilt - all that got them is record breaking obstructionism. The comes a time when understanding comes to end, and fighting back is the rational response. The GOP have crossed this line several times over, Obama's a saint for holding back this long.

If the Democrats start justifying obstructionism just because Republicans did it to them in the past then it's proof that the "when they go low, we go high" mantra is bullshit. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to pushing their agenda. There are no high roads here.

It is bullshit at the moment, and why should the Dems not play hard ball?

Because Dems suck at hard ball.

Then what do they have to lose? This'll give them vital practice for the years to come.

If the Democrats start justifying obstructionism just because Republicans did it to them in the past then it's proof that the "when they go low, we go high" mantra is bullshit. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to pushing their agenda. There are no high roads here.

Hello, new person! Welcome to the Penny Arcade forums! I look forward to reading your contributions to this thread, and encourage you to also participate in the many other discussions on this site; you may find some of them to your interest as well!

While you're here, I'm hoping you can answer a question I wanted to put to your predecessor, before they were forced to leave us. You see, I'm currently unemployed and so I'm genuinely curious: how much does this gig pay? (Or is this volunteer work, or an unpaid internship?)
If it would be more convenient to answer in terms of a currency other than US dollars, go ahead; I can do the conversion myself.

Like with NATO, it's another thing where Trump's right for the wrong reasons. How to fix the intelligence agency quagmire is one of those things Presidents have been trying for a generation, and usually attempts to fix just make it worse (like when Bush's effort to reconcile interagency rivalries that had their role in causing 9/11 to get past the radar ended up creating an entire expensive new cabinet-level department).

Similar to NATO, i'm sure any solution Trump devises will just make the problem worse.

Uh, what? In what way is Trump right on NATO exactly?

NATO countries don't pull their fair share in defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The reason NATO has worked for so long under this dynamic is cause the US spends well over our requirement. Places like France, and the UK don't spend as much as they're supposed to (I think it's like 2% of GDP? Can't recall the exact number but it's somewhere in the 2-4% range).

In that sense Trump is kinda right that we need to go back to the table and figure out these agreements cause as of right now we're pulling the majority of the weight for such a broad coalition.

It's 2% of GDP. Excluding the US, of the remaining 27 member states of NATO only 8 met the 2% requirement, and that's with some generous stretching(counting Portugal at 1.9% and Lithuania at 1.8%). Ironically, both of your examples, France and the UK, both meet the 2% requirement. For the most part, the majority of the remaining members spend about 1% to 1.5%, or about half to 3/4ths of what they should.

Of course, it's also important to realize the requirement is in a % of GDP, and that the US' GDP is massive in comparison to any single other member state of NATO. Germany is the second wealthiest member state in NATO by GDP, and the US's GDP is ~5 times Germany's. As a result, even if every member state exactly matched the 2% requirement(including the US), then the US would still be ~45% of NATO(And note: total NATO spending decreases in this scenario). If the US were to maintain it's current levels of spending and everyone else were to met the 2% requirement, the US would still be a majority of spending at ~60% of NATO spending.

If the Democrats start justifying obstructionism just because Republicans did it to them in the past then it's proof that the "when they go low, we go high" mantra is bullshit. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to pushing their agenda. There are no high roads here.

America's government works on precedent. In a nutshell: Action X produces Desired Result Y, therefore Action X is acceptable. The Republicans spent 8 years completely obstructing government and it's ability to function and were rewarded for it with the presidency.

When dem's say "we go high" they don't mean "We will only follow the strictest of moral codes", they mean "We will follow the precedents that were set in the past."

Going back a page to that concealed carry nonsense, it's blatantly unconstitutional and comparing it to credit cards is laughable. The feds were able to force states to accept other state's credit card regulations because Feds have the ultimate power when it comes to interstate commerce, so what they say goes according to the constitution. Concealed carry has nothing to do with intrastate commerce, let alone interstate commerce, so I can only see that bill dying as soon as someone challenges it. Otherwise, if it were to pass, welcome to Alaska where the only requirement for concealed carry is that you can legally posses the gun and tell any law enforcement that you have it immediately.

Democrats have done a shitty job of demonstrating that they understand how Republicans feel, without that there will never be a strong foundation for negotiation or compromise. Every effort spent on fruitless obstructionism is a wasted opportunity for a deeper conversation. It needs to stop. Take the high road.

Don't come in here and act like Obama hadn't tried to negotiate and compromise for eight years and Republicans being petulant children the whole while about it, demanding concession after concession and then stonewalling once those concessions were given.